Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?Piling on has never been an ideology that I've agreed with.As for the declaring war nonsense, the WU declared war on the US. They were citizens, mostly over priveledged, highly educated civilians with no perspective and who thought it was 'cool' to protest.They didn't change anything and, by their own admission, they were ineffective.What's sad is that you equate what they did as heroic.What they did was dangerous, irresponsible and could have very easily led to the deaths of innocents - all in an effort to end a war.Was Vietnam a just war? In my opinion no.Did pulling out result in anything positive?Not at all.One of the generals from the viet cong side recently revealed that they were on the brink and about to give up.Instead, the liberals in this country forced the US to give up.Over a million people died when we left. The vietcong took over and vietnam became a communist stronghold.We could have won that war, just like we could win just about any war, if the left in this country had the good sense to let things play out appropriately.Instead, they second guess everything to death and do so not for the good of the country, but so their leadership can further attain power.I still fail to see the point of the WU. They were opposed to the war in Vietnam, so they decided to perpetrate violent crimes in an effort to make change.And they failed in every sense.Of course, thanks to their liberal buddies, some of them never paid a price. It must be nice to think that declaring war on the country is a good way to make change.It isn't.It IS a good way to make sure that people like me no longer identify as Democrat.I was a card carrying member of the Democrat party since I was able to register to vote. I voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.Then, one day, I opened my eyes to the truth.

You say that nothing good was accomplished by pulling out of Vietnam? Tell that to the American soldiers who would have been killed if we stayed. Yes you are right, the left should always succumb to the judgment of the conservatives. If we did that we could have avoided WWII because the conservative business leaders of America were the ones backing the Germans and trying to keep us out of the war so the profits could keep rolling along. You originally brought up the haymarket statue? Do you understand why that is so incendiary? It would be like having a bronze noose in Philadelphia Mississippi to honor the brave men who lynched blacks. To insinuate that well over half the country has never woken up proves that you have a dislove for this country and what makes it great. I encourage you to open up your mind and gain some perspective.

The left shouldn't always bow to the conservatives, but they should be more careful about what they stand up about and, more importantly, how.During the vietnam conflict, the far left in this country made clear politically motivated statements. This resulted, primarily, in more torture for POW's and an emboldening of the enemy. If americans don't support the military, it helps the enemy to excuse their mistreatment of them as well. As for your crazy talk about WW2, conservatives and liberals.... Grow up. Conservatives in this country were no more representative of nazi's than liberals were. The quickest way to make sure there can be no further conversation is to bring up naziism.As for your nonsensical, clearly misinformed assertion of the harmarket statue, I find your remarks too far off the mark to take you seriously at all.Here's a breakdown of what basically happened for you, since you obviously have no idea:Police were marching to disperse a crowd of striking workers. A small group of uber-leftist anarchists threw a bomb into the crowd, towards the police. The bomb went off and killed 7 police officers (men charged with keeping the peace) and an unknown number of civilians. Eight anarchists were tried for murder. Four were put to death, and one committed suicide in prison. This was the early 20's. There is nothing remotely "like having a bronze noose in Philadelphia Mississippi to honor the brave men who lynched blacks", putz. It's more like having a statue for fallen police officers. Oh wait, it's exactly like that. And not incendiary at all, as a matter of fact. The statue recognized BOTH the police AND the fallen workers. I live by the haymarket memorial statue. I've seen it. It isn't incendiary at all, not one bit.And to insinuate that half this country hasn't woken up does not prove that I have a "dislove" for this country (whatever that is). I meant that more than half this country is so wrapped up in their liberalism-is-cooler attitudes, as well as their being-conservative-means-I'm-right attitude that they forget that America is about being liberal about some things and conservative about others.I have no 'dislove' (the only definition I could find for this made up word was in the urban dictionary, btw) for this country.I have a passionate love for her. What bothers me more than anything else about the left right now is that the FAR left has dominated the democrat party. The majority of americans are a nice, healthy blend of ideology. The ones that have woken up realize that the current left we have is not the left we used to have. They continue to stray further away from center and continue to lose supporters.Say what you will, but don't make the mistake of questioning my patriotism merely because I disagree with your ideology, defense of terrorism, and exclusionary thinking. Not everything democrat's have done has been perfect, a trait they share with their friends on the other side of the aisle. One thing you might learn about me is that I am not a Democrat and not a republican. I am a blend who finds himself more at odds with the party as time progresses. One could imply from your writings that you believe all republicans to be evil and corrupt. This is particularly sad because it means you've closed your eyes, likely out of anger. Politicians on both sides are trying to do the right thing. If you don't believe that, then I would say that you are the one who has issues with the depth of their love for this great country.

Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?[snip filler]

This is called "academic freedom," and it is the organizing principle of higher education. Anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who cannot accept that is not prepared to engage in scholarship.

True academic freedom would allow both sides to be heard... not the crap I and other students have had to put up with. I had one tenured professor announce on the first day that:

1. if you are a Republican, conservative, or think Marxism is an evil force get out of my class now2. if you do not get out of my class now, I will find out that you are one of those things and will fail you.

then all his papers were ones like "who was a better president? Reagan or Carter?" and you said even one good thing about Reagan he'd give you at highest a D (learned that the hard way on the first paper)

I complained to the department and another more conservative member of the faculty and they were unable to do anything since he was tenured.

sadly, this is just one of the many things youd like to term as "academic freedom" that I have had to deal with in my academic career. I think academic freedom is an admirable goal but we are not experiencing it today by any stretch of the imagination.

don't take one bad apple and hold him/her up as the poster child of academia. experiences like that are few and far between, and should be dealt with quickly and severely.

Yeah, god forbid anyone gives an example of academic liberalism. We might be able to see how someone had to deal with a hard core liberal in a school being disciminatory towards anyone who doesn't think like them. Please people, no more stories or personal anecdotes to illustrate the point that alecto refuses to acknowledge exists.Her fragile world is crumbling....

Experiences like that are not far and few between and are almost never dealt with quickly or severely, no matter what color your sunglasses are....There are stories like this all over the place. Denying it is a problem is sure to fix it though, right?

I don't have a "fragile world" -- I know fanatics exist in every party, religion, school . . . . I think the point is to continuously point out to them that their extremist views aren't the only ones. I don't care if you bring up these instances of "liberal oppression" or whatever you think it is, as long as you acknowledge that there are also a lot of liberal professors and others in academia (media, politics) who try to encourage honest debate, tolerance, and understanding.

and I didn't deny that it's a problem when it occurs, but I don't think it's as wide-spread as you seem to believe. if you had read my post, you would have seen that I think people like the one mentioned in your anecdote should be dealt with very harshly by the school (whether they have tenure or not).

One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law. Her name is Bernardine Dohrn. The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.

There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.

This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28

Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.

Assumptive (something you really should deal with if you intend to argue in court). I said "terrible attacks on innocent people", with no clear implication that they killed people. TERRORISM isn't about body count, it's about creating fear. I didn't obfuscate anything.Property damage doesn't quite sum up what they did.One act was to plant a bomb in the ladies room in the air force wing of the freaking pentagon.Something that says 'no matter hw secure you are, we can still get to you.'Clever attempt at discrediting my statement though.

So we're clear: a terrible attack on an innocent person (or people) doesn't imply that the person (or people) was the subject of violence or attempted violence? Interesting parsing. The judge will be impressed.

Just so I understand you right, it's okay to cost the taxpayers of Illinois more money to make a point that war is bad and costs too much money?Piling on has never been an ideology that I've agreed with.As for the declaring war nonsense, the WU declared war on the US. They were citizens, mostly over priveledged, highly educated civilians with no perspective and who thought it was 'cool' to protest.They didn't change anything and, by their own admission, they were ineffective.What's sad is that you equate what they did as heroic.What they did was dangerous, irresponsible and could have very easily led to the deaths of innocents - all in an effort to end a war.Was Vietnam a just war? In my opinion no.Did pulling out result in anything positive?Not at all.One of the generals from the viet cong side recently revealed that they were on the brink and about to give up.Instead, the liberals in this country forced the US to give up.Over a million people died when we left. The vietcong took over and vietnam became a communist stronghold.We could have won that war, just like we could win just about any war, if the left in this country had the good sense to let things play out appropriately.Instead, they second guess everything to death and do so not for the good of the country, but so their leadership can further attain power.I still fail to see the point of the WU. They were opposed to the war in Vietnam, so they decided to perpetrate violent crimes in an effort to make change.And they failed in every sense.Of course, thanks to their liberal buddies, some of them never paid a price. It must be nice to think that declaring war on the country is a good way to make change.It isn't.It IS a good way to make sure that people like me no longer identify as Democrat.I was a card carrying member of the Democrat party since I was able to register to vote. I voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.Then, one day, I opened my eyes to the truth.

You say that nothing good was accomplished by pulling out of Vietnam? Tell that to the American soldiers who would have been killed if we stayed. Yes you are right, the left should always succumb to the judgment of the conservatives. If we did that we could have avoided WWII because the conservative business leaders of America were the ones backing the Germans and trying to keep us out of the war so the profits could keep rolling along. You originally brought up the haymarket statue? Do you understand why that is so incendiary? It would be like having a bronze noose in Philadelphia Mississippi to honor the brave men who lynched blacks. To insinuate that well over half the country has never woken up proves that you have a dislove for this country and what makes it great. I encourage you to open up your mind and gain some perspective.

The left shouldn't always bow to the conservatives, but they should be more careful about what they stand up about and, more importantly, how.During the vietnam conflict, the far left in this country made clear politically motivated statements. This resulted, primarily, in more torture for POW's and an emboldening of the enemy. If americans don't support the military, it helps the enemy to excuse their mistreatment of them as well. As for your crazy talk about WW2, conservatives and liberals.... Grow up. Conservatives in this country were no more representative of nazi's than liberals were. The quickest way to make sure there can be no further conversation is to bring up naziism.As for your nonsensical, clearly misinformed assertion of the harmarket statue, I find your remarks too far off the mark to take you seriously at all.Here's a breakdown of what basically happened for you, since you obviously have no idea:Police were marching to disperse a crowd of striking workers. A small group of uber-leftist anarchists threw a bomb into the crowd, towards the police. The bomb went off and killed 7 police officers (men charged with keeping the peace) and an unknown number of civilians. Eight anarchists were tried for murder. Four were put to death, and one committed suicide in prison. This was the early 20's. There is nothing remotely "like having a bronze noose in Philadelphia Mississippi to honor the brave men who lynched blacks", putz. It's more like having a statue for fallen police officers. Oh wait, it's exactly like that. And not incendiary at all, as a matter of fact. The statue recognized BOTH the police AND the fallen workers. I live by the haymarket memorial statue. I've seen it. It isn't incendiary at all, not one bit.And to insinuate that half this country hasn't woken up does not prove that I have a "dislove" for this country (whatever that is). I meant that more than half this country is so wrapped up in their liberalism-is-cooler attitudes, as well as their being-conservative-means-I'm-right attitude that they forget that America is about being liberal about some things and conservative about others.I have no 'dislove' (the only definition I could find for this made up word was in the urban dictionary, btw) for this country.I have a passionate love for her. What bothers me more than anything else about the left right now is that the FAR left has dominated the democrat party. The majority of americans are a nice, healthy blend of ideology. The ones that have woken up realize that the current left we have is not the left we used to have. They continue to stray further away from center and continue to lose supporters.Say what you will, but don't make the mistake of questioning my patriotism merely because I disagree with your ideology, defense of terrorism, and exclusionary thinking. Not everything democrat's have done has been perfect, a trait they share with their friends on the other side of the aisle. One thing you might learn about me is that I am not a Democrat and not a republican. I am a blend who finds himself more at odds with the party as time progresses. One could imply from your writings that you believe all republicans to be evil and corrupt. This is particularly sad because it means you've closed your eyes, likely out of anger. Politicians on both sides are trying to do the right thing. If you don't believe that, then I would say that you are the one who has issues with the depth of their love for this great country.

History lesson for you, although I am certain it will do no good, not because you are a conservative but because you refuse to pay attention. The American business community was opposed to intervention in WWII. They had formed an organization called "America First" that is still a favorite of paleoconservatives.

The haymarket massacre was not about the bomb that went off but the ensuing friendly fire that killed 4 civilians and police officers afterwards. If the statue was to honor the innocent civilians that died why do they choose to depict a police officer instead of the workers? Remember, the cops were the ones killing people. The trial that ensued was a farce. The idea that we are arguing this point 80 years later should show you that it is still incendiary.

Yes dislove is a made up word. Can you not understand the meaning based on the parts of the word? Figure it out. You are smart enough to log onto the internet maybe this too you can one day aspire to grasp.

In terms of vietnam you are arguing all we need is more time? What 19 years wasn't enough? You said yourself it was an unjust war. Why would you continue to put soldiers in harms way? It is easy to say you support the war when there is currently an opportunity to serve but you choose to hide in Law School. My brother tells me there are plenty of opportunities in the army. You have been refuted time and time again with facts and yet you call me off base? Are you delusional or stupid?

You say that the far left dominates the democratic party. Once again are you delusional or stupid? What far left positions do they take? Is it the new GI Bill that does them in? How about saying we should invest in new technologies to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels? What is so ideologically out of whack with American values? Why do you think the conservatives have lost three republican seats if the Democrats are out of touch with the American ideals. The Democratic party has made a point of reaching across the aisle and have even placed quite a few Conservative democrats in power like Reagan's Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb.

WU were standing up to what they saw as tyranny. Nobody was injured. A few windows were shattered. Get over it.

I don't have a "fragile world" -- I know fanatics exist in every party, religion, school . . . . I think the point is to continuously point out to them that their extremist views aren't the only ones. I don't care if you bring up these instances of "liberal oppression" or whatever you think it is, as long as you acknowledge that there are also a lot of liberal professors and others in academia (media, politics) who try to encourage honest debate, tolerance, and understanding.

I'll admit it, there are a lot of "decent" liberal professors... but there are far too many crazy ones and as far as i have found, there haven't been any crazy conservative ones since so few of them are allowed to become faculty or choose to educate instead of being in business etc.

As far as media, all I need to say is Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews but at the same time you have Sean Hannity etc. to counterbalance. The difference though is also that I have yet to have found a conservative on a major network like CBS pull their own Rathergate... may have happened but I dont seem to recall it, mostly because there are no conservatives on the major networks.

As far as politics, pretty much anyone beyond state level (and even sometimes at state level) tends to have bad character so I wouldn't go by that standard for either side. But I do personally feel there is a lot more flip-floping and double speak from the left than the right though imo

I'll admit it, there are a lot of "decent" liberal professors... but there are far too many crazy ones and as far as i have found, there haven't been any crazy conservative ones since so few of them are allowed to become faculty or choose to educate instead of being in business etc.

As far as media, all I need to say is Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews but at the same time you have Sean Hannity etc. to counterbalance. The difference though is also that I have yet to have found a conservative on a major network like CBS pull their own Rathergate... may have happened but I dont seem to recall it, mostly because there are no conservatives on the major networks.

As far as politics, pretty much anyone beyond state level (and even sometimes at state level) tends to have bad character so I wouldn't go by that standard for either side. But I do personally feel there is a lot more flip-floping and double speak from the left than the right though imo

You feel that there is? Good to know we are basing this on feeling. I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who were governed by feelings. Most liberals would answer that Rathergate was minor compared to the lack of fact checking that led to the Iraq War. I think Scott McClellen would agree.

As far as politics, pretty much anyone beyond state level (and even sometimes at state level) tends to have bad character so I wouldn't go by that standard for either side. But I do personally feel there is a lot more flip-floping and double speak from the left than the right though imo

What's the difference between flip-flopping and changing your position in response to changing facts forming the basis of your opinions? There isn't; it's being nuanced and reactive when you agree with the policy or the politician, and it's unprincipled pandering when you disagree with the policy or the politician. If you're a Democrat, John Kerry was principled in his shifting support for the Iraq war; if you're a Republican, he was a flip-flopper. If you're a Republican, John McCain's switch to support torture was principled because he recognizes the stakes; if you're a Democrat, he is a flip-flopper.

Also, I've never understood the opposition to changing your position/flip-flopping. What's the value in having rigid, doctrinal beliefs or opinions that are unresponsive to facts (those stubborn things)? Resolve?

This is like the term "judicial activism," which is used (by those on the right and the left) almost without exception to describe an outcome in a case that the speaker doesn't agree with politically. In other words, if a speaker hasn't read an opinion -- or done independent research into the relevant guiding law in the area of the court's decision -- and calls a decision they disagree with politically "judicial activism," it is the speaker who is being "activist" by trying to get judges to decide based wholly on political rather than jurisprudential and precedential grounds. Like flip-flopping, it's a term of abuse.

As a liberal, I must say McCain isn't a flip flopper nor do I claim to understand his rationale for it. It was politically expedient though in regards to the Republican primary. I think despite McCain's flaws he is an admirable guy. I would have voted for him in 2000 had he received the nomination. Much as I voted for Dole in 96. (my first election). The problem I have with McCain now are not about him in terms of his ability to lead this country. I will not vote for him because I refuse to let the Republicans shift the balance of the courts further to the right.

I'm not sure how changing your position based on political expediency isn't "flip-flopping" by definition. I also disagree with your (empirical?) claim that McCain isn't a flip-flopper: see, e.g., http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15227.html (documenting at least 25 instances)

I do not pretend to know what motivates people to change positions. That is for that person to determine. I do not consider someone changing their mind as flip flopping. I believe that McCain may have been on the fence about it and modified his position as quickly as possibly to insure he was the nomination. I wish he wasn't because he is the only candidate that any democrat would struggle with in this election cycle.